TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants title change, upholds denial of service credit, stresses compliance with tax rules</h1> <h3>Titan Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, LTU, Chennai</h3> Titan Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, LTU, Chennai - 2016 (46) S.T.R. 691 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Change of cause title application filed by Revenue.2. Denial of excess input service credit distributed by ISD.3. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding distribution of credit.4. Allegation of suppression of facts by the Revenue.5. Application for waiver of predeposit by the appellant.Issue 1: Change of Cause Title Application:The Revenue filed an application to change the cause title from 'Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III' to 'Commissioner of Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai' due to the appellant's shift to LTU jurisdiction. The change was allowed, directing the amendment in all records.Issue 2: Denial of Excess Input Service Credit:The appellant, engaged in watch manufacturing, availed cenvat credit distributed by ISD. Show cause notices were issued for denying excess credit during specific periods. The appellant argued that the credit distribution was as per a template, not violating Cenvat Credit Rules. The Revenue contended that the credit was denied due to Rule 7(b) violation and suppression of facts.Issue 3: Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules:The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6 and Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, focusing on the distribution conditions by ISD. It was found that the credit distribution method by ISD, based on overhead expenses percentage, included expenses of exempted units, breaching Rule 7(b). The Tribunal noted the relevance of case laws in similar contexts.Issue 4: Allegation of Suppression of Facts:The Revenue argued that the appellant, being part of a group with exempted units, suppressed the credit distribution method. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence of the department's knowledge of the distribution method, and the issue of extended limitation period was to be examined during appeal.Issue 5: Application for Waiver of Predeposit:The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for full predeposit waiver. They were directed to deposit a specified amount within a deadline, with the balance subject to waiver upon compliance. The Revenue's application was allowed in this regard.This judgment addressed various issues, including the change of cause title application, denial of excess credit, interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, allegations of suppression of facts, and the application for predeposit waiver. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments from both sides, focusing on the compliance with rules and the distribution method of credit. The decision highlighted the importance of following statutory provisions and the need for transparency in tax matters.
TaxTMI 